Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Bullshit. She's an academic. Which means she's been sitting at a University writing papers about how the world should be instead of how it really is. Clarence Thomas went to Yale law school and John Roberts went to Harvard. Fortunately, they didn't stay at their schools and keep writing papers. They got out into the real world and practiced law.

Let's see what she thinks about the Constitution. If she sees it as a "living, breathing document" we'll know how she's going to rule on anything. If she's a constructionist, which I seriously doubt, then I'll be amazed if Liberals/Progressives don't tear her apart. Obama has already stated she'd have "empathy" and "understanding" from many different points of view. That's not what I want to see in a judge. I want someone who's going to follow the law equally, no matter what the circumstances of the individual. If I wanted an empathic judge, I'd move somewhere where the people in power don't even have to bother going to court.

Good thing we've got Clarence Thomas on the Court. He's asked a handful of questions in his whole Court career, even though the entire Court procedure is based on justices asking questions during the arguing of cases before them. He's the worst justice of your lifetime, and he's your gold standard.

Along with Roberts. Evidently, the more extreme Republican they are, the more you like them. Hardly an example of "real world" connectedness.

Ahem. So being a Constitutionalist is "Right Wing"?. And here I thought that was to be expected for a member of SCOTUS. But what the hell, it's outdated and people like Elena Kagan know better than than the founding fathers. Riiiight....

Nonsense. The Supreme Court is about BALANCE OF POWER. The Constitution is an old document. It is simple and elegant, but not perfect. Many laws over many years have clarified and reinterpreted its meaning, as has court precedent, and the administrative guidelines devised to clarify those laws for government personnel. Interpretation-- of the facts and of the laws-- is a fundamental activity of any judge, with that activity being more important as you move up in the judicial system. There is simply NO

It's not a Judges job to look at the common American and make decisions, it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic not a warm fuzzy feeling for helping the little guy. Being an administrator at a college and a lawyer for Clinton, does not qualify a person to make these decisions. A justice of the supreme court should be there because of their qualifications not their political capital.

it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic

No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)

The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).

As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a highe

Like any other nomination, it's about their stance rather than whether they were a judge before or not.

No, it's not about their "stance". It's about their qualifications. Period.

It's only in the last twenty-five years with the televising of the confirmation hearings that senators have decided to put on a clown show for political purposes. It doesn't matter what the nominee's "stance" on abortion, on religion, or on whether or not they believe a corporation has the same civil rights as a human being, except to the 24-hour news cycle and the culture of hysteria that requires them to shit on the floor if a liberal gets nominated.

In a way, I hope that the Republicans in the Senate decide to filibuster Kagen. This way, we can finally do away with the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations, which is not constitutional. The GOP had it right about the "nuclear option" (aka "the Constitutional option). The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way. Every single administration can't even get people into important appointed posts because they have to play the 60-vote game. So, important undersecretary jobs and federal court appointments go unfilled.

The most interesting aspect of the coming hearings on Kagan is going to be how the GOP can call her a "lesbian" without actually using the word. You're going to hear a lot more questions about "teh Gay" in these hearings than for any other justice in history. They're going to have to figure out how to throw red meat to their "base" without actually calling her a carpet-muncher and then giggling like schoolboys. Since Lyndsay Graham is on the judicial committee, it's going to be especially interesting for him to try to insinuate homosexuality, since he's had more rusty trombones than a high-school band.

The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way.

Yes it absolutely was meant to be that way! With a supermajority, it meant that a huge portion of the People wanted the country to go a certain way. Without that supermajority, legislation comes to a standstill, which is exactly what the founders wanted. A government that does nothing is far better than a government that tries to tackle every "issue of the moment".

If we didn't have so many damn legislators going after every stupid little thing that they think is a problem (carry-on luggage fees, facebook

You've got some "clairvoyance" there to comfortably map out her entire SCOTUS career when she still has to make it through both the confirmation process and said career if she does get confirmed. It's completely reasonable to be wary of any incoming nomination to the most powerful court of the land. It's absolutely unreasonable to respond to a measured statement like "she might have a secret agenda but it's more likely she's just not very biased about stuff" with "Are really that naive or are you just a shill"? You sound like quite the shill yourself (I'm ignoring the qualifier of being paid of in some way since you are ignoring it too), essentially touting the Conservative talking points as if because Obama nominates her she is going to assume every single position that you personally disagree with, because she's obviously one of "them" if Obama nominated her.

I don't like her nomination, I personally don't think that replacing the liberal Stephens with the apparently executive-branch-friendly Kagan is necessarily the best way to go. But it takes a special kind of ignoramus to start yelling that the sky is falling because all you need to know about her you learned when you discovered what a dirty word "Progressive" is in your mind. Slap that label on her, it's obviously important to you to show other people how distasteful it is. The truth of the matter is that she's not expressed many (if any) really Progressive ideas so most of your post is vapid hot-air complaining at length about what every Conservative has been saying about every Liberal in recent history.

New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
Masses of common quarks are revealed
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
QUT physicist corrects Oxford English Dictionary
Funnel vision: New info about how cells in the eye help guide light into the retina
Suppressing activity of common intestinal bacteria reduces tumor growth
Scientists create mouse grimace scale to help identify pain in humans and animals
Chemist stitches up speedier chemical reactions
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research

All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.

I had a lot of fun demolishing my poli sci instructor's graduate thesis. It was that increasing the speed limits had turned out to vastly increase the number of highway deaths. A little statistics later, I showed him that almost all of the increase he was citing was in areas where the speed limits had not in fact increased (urban areas), and that most urban areas had no change outside the margins of error. PoliSci is not particularly rigorous, I find.

Posting the names and addresses of those who oppose them is a common tactic of Democratic Party affiliated organizations.

Citation needed. Preferably one that matches in offensiveness, say, Republican-affiliated sites that list the names and addresses of abortion doctors and make 'wanted' posters with targets superimposed on their features.

Sorry, but this is the Politics section. The only reason the politics section exists is to generate page hits by getting people into a huge partisan flamewar while generating ad revenue for Slashdot. It was started in 2004 as a transparent attempt to profit from the increasingly politicized populace that loves to argue endlessly over this crap online. Given the number of comments these articles tend to get, I'd say it's paid off handsomely for Slashdot's corporate overlords. It is no more "news for nerd

While I agree that there's a lack of technical content in this posting... Who gets nominated to the Supreme Court does affect the tech industry. Especially now, with the copyright and patent litigation that's being brought before the courts.

Because it's flamebait, jackass. Hell, I'd argue the comment "Apparently, for some Slashdot readers, political sanity means supporting a fully-Goldman Sachs administration." is nothing but shallow trolling... though it looks like you might actually believe it, so flamebait is probably appropriate.

The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased. I don't give a shit if you disagree with the thesis, those are the facts. Pointing that out doesn't mean you support this administration or it's p

That squicking noise you're hearing is political talking heads and late night comedians the length and breadth of the nation literally creaming their pants. Warm gushes of pure joy as their jobs are secured for the next 3 months.

Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.

Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.

I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to put Krogans in the Supreme Court. After all, they were genetically engineered as a weapon and so it might not be safe for the other members of the court. On the other hand, it might give me and Obama Paragon points that might open interesting conversation options later. What do your think?

I agree with this article [volokh.com], that while she may be a liberal candidate, she seems to be very willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints.

You have to expect a liberal candidate is going to nominate someone with a liberal bent, so to nominate someone who can truly work with diverse viewpoints on an issue is, I think, a pretty thoughtful and intelligent nomination.

As to those wanting this story off Slashdot - just who do you think is going to be involved in the end-game of various copyright and FCC regulation? The largest issues will all end up in the supreme court. Like it or not, the future of what is possible with technology is intertwined with the laws that define what CAN be realistically presented to the market. In an ideal world, wouldn't you love to have her views on copyright extension, and the constitutionality of the ACTA treaty brought up?

You can chose to ignore politics and focus only on technology - but politics is in no way going to ignore YOU.

She has argued before the supreme court that if a prosecutor manufactures evidence, causing the conviction of an innocent person, that the prosecutor should not be subject to a lawsuit from the person they fucked over.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits - even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits - even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

As I said before, she's evil.

-jcr

But as solicitor general, she has to defend the administration position on this whether she wants to or not, so we don't know if she personally supports that position also.

According to Byron White in US vs. Wade, the prosecution has an obligation to make sure they are not going after the wrong guy. It's the defense that has to do everything in it's power to avoid conviction, even if the defense believes the allegations are true:

"Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission o

Although they ultimately come out in her favor, the writers make a great presentation of their evidence, and certainly know a thing or two about the Supreme Court.

It's definitely worth a read before sounding off on your initial gut reactions to the nomination. It's also your right and prerogative to research the case against Kagan, although you really need to comprehend and understand the context of her job as Solicitor General before jumping to any conclusions.

Personally, despite my initial unease, I'm growing to like her, and would welcome a persuasive, non-activist judge on the court.

Actually, near elections there are a lot of political stories on/. I recall that there was an actual "Politics" section created in 2004.

Let's fact it, U.S. elections have a huge effect on the technology world and a Supreme Court appointment directly effects many issues as well. Many YRO stories are closely tied to what the leadership of the U.S. is choosing to do with respect to technology, the policies they pursue and the laws they pass.

Now I would have expected to see a story relating something in Kagan's past that related to technology and might reflect her views on something relevant to our interests. Nevertheless, her choice can be very important to "News for Nerds", but since she has not been a judge I think it will be very interesting trying to decide what kind of judge she will be. Non-judges have been appointed before, there's no problem with someone who's never been a judge but has other relevant experience, but there's no paper trail of judgements or decisions.

Since when is News for Nerds, limited to just technology? You might be a "technology" centric nerd, but there are other nerds out there. There are Sci-Fi Fantasy nerds. There are nerds of sciences other than Technology, like Psychology and Sociology...

Great, block politics from your home page. This is not a tech news site, it is a news for nerds site. If you don't like politics, feel free to modify your preferences. This appointment could have very significant consequences on dozens of issues to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Many of those, no doubt, will be news for nerds as well.

I like political news as it pertains to technology (e.g., DMCA, ACTA, George W. Bush's daughter giving him an illegal mix CD for his birthday). I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.

I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.

I know right? What possible impact could the LIFETIME appointment of a 50 year old have on the world. It's not like that appointment will have anything to do with directing the behavior of US law. And US law never has had any impact other countries.

Ok, snark off...

But understand, that a young Supreme Court Justice can have an impact on the United States and its laws an policies that go well beyond that of even the President. Obama is gone in 8 years at most, and as we have seen the first year, the fourth year, and potentially the 8th year will mean nothing. At most you will see 5 years of him effecting change and quite possibly only 2.5 yrs. Considering we see these justices approaching 90 years of age, and they don't have to campaign, this appointment will likely have 30+ years of influence on US law that will likely resonate around the world.

I'd place a US Supreme Court justice as one of the top 100 most powerful people in the world. They don't get to wield their power in the typical manner like a show of force, but they when they use it, it would take 3/4ths of the United States to overrule them.

Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.

I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.

1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?

I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.

Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.

I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.

Since we don't know the ideology of the SCOTUS nominee, we have to assume that she is closely aligned with that of the President. With that assumption made, it should be pretty easy to answer your questions. I'll provide them below just as I predict Kagan will.

1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?

Yes, absolutely. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate... anything. Just look at all the precedent we have for massive expansion of power under Interstate Commerce. These agencies are allowed to regulate "trade" and "communications". Without limit.

2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?

Your community is where you live, of course. And as long as your community leaders recognize the supremacy of Federal law, they will be able to require whatever filtering and banning of Internet content that they deem necessary. Based on their community standards, of course.

3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.

No, I'm sorry, that's all based on private contracts and copyright. Congress can extend copyright to forever -1 day if they want. That's what the Constitution allows. Look at all the precedent!

4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?

Well no, of course not. That's just the Federal government working to protect you, along with cooperative international agreements and global consensus. That "privacy right" that precedent created is only for ensuring your right to sexual proclivities and abortions and stuff. It doesn't mean you get to keep information private from the Federal government, because that would be an undue burden on its ability to govern. You see that, don't you?

I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.

Funny, the majority of Americans disagree with you about that. How's it feel to be a powerless minority? What you call damage, real Americans call progress. In fact, most of us think he hasn't done enough. He's too centrist, we all wish he was a real socialist, but he's not. Frankly, I don't understand why the right wing hates him, he's practically a clone of Ronald Reagan, who, by the by, is Obama's stated favorite president. Senile Ronald freaking Reagan, our 'socialist' president's favorite. Doesn't that beat all? Bet you never heard that, listening to the delusional right wing echo chamber.

Okay, I lied. I do know why the right wing hates him. To the right wing, it doesn't matter what Obama really is. He's the enemy, and he must fail for them to win. Thus, the constant stream of lies. But real lefties like myself are even more disappointed in the man than you probably are. Repealed DADT yet? No. Stopped torture? No. Prosecuted anyone in the Bush admin for war crimes? Are you fucking joking? Gotten out of Iraq? No. Socialized health care? Hah! Not even close. Reined in Wall Street? Hardly. Face it, Obama is a center right corporatist, about as far as you can get from a socialist, despite what the right claims.

Oh noes! I was called out for pointing out by way of example what conservatives do, telling other Americans they aren't 'real.' Yes, that makes me just like them, to the satire impaired.

I'm not a 'winger' of any stripe. I'm a fucking anarcho-socialist, capice? I voted for Obama as the (far) lesser of two evils. You assholes who try to equate the left and right wings are being totally disingenuous, and it isn't because you are in any way independent. From what I've witnessed, you're all disenchanted Bush Rep

I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.

And if the position of the court swings to support more ridged software patents or towards supporting what is proposed in the ACTA treaty.. won't that have an extreme impact on the technological realms ?

And if the position of the court swings to support more ridged software patents or towards supporting what is proposed in the ACTA treaty.. won't that have an extreme impact on the technological realms ?

That's the thing about "if". If it happened it would be Slashdot-worthy news and I wouldn't have whined publicly about it. If didn't happen this time which is why I'm reaching for my tissues and bon bons.

I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.

5687 Kerry Concedes Election To Bush by timothy4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco3709 Barack Obama Wins US Presidency by CmdrTaco3468 Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk3451 Equal Time For Creationism by Zonk3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal3315 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design by Hemos3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff

Which of those were "News for Nerds"? The editors here sure know what attracts eyeballs and "discourse."

As others have pointed out, you can disable politics [slashdot.org] by adding "politics" to your exclusions on dynamic or unchecking it in classic. Keep in mind that will block everything filed in politics both here and abroad [slashdot.org].

Whether you like it or not, nerds are often very opinionated about politics because they know it affects them and therefore it is important to them. It is not a bad thing, it is not a good thing. It's just the way I am and many of my friends are.

CmdrTaco is editing right now, it's his site originally and he prefers to keep discussions diverse daily. If it annoys you just avoid it altogether.

I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world.

Also, not to sound like an elitist but I would posit that high profile court cases in privacy (warrantless wiretapping), patents (re:Bilski) and technology regulations that make it to the supreme court actually do have some bearing on the rest of the world.

The New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.

the reason for this is that people are interested in politics, techie or not. and there's nothing wrong with a roomful of techies talking politics. you don't have to go there if you don't want. so leave us on slashdot who are obviously interested in politics (based on the most commented stories in slashdot history) to our politics, and go away

in fact, a political discussion on slashdot, theoretically, might be a more useful political discussion than a roomful of other classes of careers: as eng

I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.

Elena Kagan at fifty would be the youngest judge on the Court.

Justice Stevens is ninety.

Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court cast a very long shadow.

"If confirmed, Kagan will be the fourth woman justice in the history of the Supreme court, the eighth Jewish justice to sit on the court, and the first nom

Unless...maybe this is a subtle way of saying Kagan is a robot! Is Obama poised to nominate the first female robot Supreme Court Justice? This could indeed be a historic moment! Not only that, it would finally balance the court in terms of robot justices. Finally the liberal side of the court will have its own robot justice to balance out Clarence Thomas.

Well, hypothetically... if she is confirmed, and any RIAA/MPAA/intellectual property/copyright/file sharing/patent/wiretapping/etc. cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, this might be important. Your Rights Online and all that.

This may not be strictly technology news. However it is most definitely news that matters. In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government. You can damn well be sure this will impact many hot button topics that relate to technology.

And if you are outside the U.S. the impact is less... but the United States still sets the tone on many privacy and technology issues. It would be smart to have at least SOME idea about what is going on in this regard.

So, sorry that this isn't your third daily update on the iPad. But maybe, just maybe, this is more relevant.

In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government.

One way to look at it in terms of impact. Take the US Federal budget, divide it by three(3 branches), then divide that by 9. $3.6 trillion dollars/3 = $1.2 Trillion dollars. divide by 9, and this very gross approximation of her influence is on the order of:

$130 billion per year. Assume she sits for 28 years (78 yrs old?) and somehow the US budget doesn't increase and she will have a total lifeti

Don't let the spin fool you. It would be impossible for Obama to find someone to the left of justice Stevens. Therefore, even replacing him with a fire breathing, man-hating lesbian liberal would be a move to the right.

For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.

For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated. Diane Wood, frequently put forward as a good alternative to Kagan, has been on an appellate court for 15 years. Being a competent lawyer and being a competent judge are different skills, and I'd much rather have a pick that has demonstrated they're capable of being a judge.

In addition, there's good reason to call her competence as an attorney into question. For instance, in Citizen's United v FEC, her first oral argument of any kind, she (by her own admission) panicked when Justice Kennedy asked her about other significant First Amendment cases. (the exchange can be found on page 41 [supremecourt.gov])

And I'm not suggesting this rule has always been followed, but when it isn't followed, we are taking a much bigger risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.

- Kagan is the current Solicitor General of The US- Kagan was the Dean of Law at Harvard

--> Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."

For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience. For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated [...]

* John Roberts: Was a Republican Party operative who had been a judge for two years before being appointed to lead the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship.* Earl Warren: Was governor of California and that state's Attorney General, and became one of the best justices of all time.* William Rehnquist: Was a Republican Party operative challenging the voting rights of Latino citizens in Arizona before being an Assistant Attorney General, and became one of the worst justices of all time.* Abe Fortas: Was a Democratic Party operative and a criminal defense lawyer who won Gideon v. Wainwright.* Harlan Stone: Was a U.S. Attorney General.* Clarence Thomas: Was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri and a member of the EEOC and had been a judge for two years before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship* Lewis Powell: Was the American Bar Association President and a Tobacco Institute lawyer.* Arthur Goldberg: Was a union lawyer and Secretary of Labor.* Byron White: Was a running back and an Assistant U.S. Attorney General.* John Harlan: Was judge for one year before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who gave him a judgeship.* Felix Frankfurter: Was a Zionist activist and co-founder of the ACLU* William Douglas: Was a member of the Securities and Exchange commission* Robert Jackson: Was a U.S. Attorney General

risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.

I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?